Hall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1. Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9 ) is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Affidavit of William D. Hittler (Doc. No. 17 ) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 19 ) is DENIED AS MOOT.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 1/5/2012. (BJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jane Marie Hall,
Civil No. 11-1269 (DWF/LIB)
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
and Dennis Lynn Hall, II,
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________________
Konstandinos Nicklow, Esq., Meshbesher & Spence, Ltd, counsel for Plaintiff.
William D. Hittler, Esq., Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, counsel for Defendant Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company.
Gregory W. Deckert, Esq., Deckert & Van Loh, PA, counsel for Defendant Dennis Lynn
Hall, II.
_______________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9), Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Affidavit of
William D. Hittler (Doc. No. 17), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 19). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motions
to dismiss and to strike and denies as moot the motion to amend.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff married Dennis Lynn Hall (“Decedent”) on May 7, 2001, and was
married to Decedent at the time of his death on January 27, 2011. (Doc. No. 1, Ex. 1,
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 26.) Decedent was hired by Newmont USA Limited (“Newmont”) in
Winnemucca, Nevada, on or about August 18, 1988. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Decedent obtained a
life insurance policy with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) through his
employment with Newmont. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Decedent originally named his son, Defendant
Dennis Lynn Hall, II, as the beneficiary under his life insurance policy. (Id. at ¶ 8.)
Beginning in or around March 2010, Plaintiff and Decedent began traveling to the
Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, for medical
examinations and treatment related to Decedent’s cancer diagnosis. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10.)
Consistent with their standard practice, on January 25, 2011, Plaintiff and Decedent
traveled to Rochester for a routine medical appointment at the Mayo Clinic, scheduled for
January 26, 2011. (Id. at ¶ 11.) Plaintiff claims that she and Decedent expected to attend
Decedent’s medical appointment on January 26, 2011, and to return to their home in
Akeley, Minnesota, later that same day. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Plaintiff alleges that she and
Decedent were not aware “of the seriousness of Decedent’s cancer situation” when they
traveled to Rochester on January 25, 2011. (Id. at ¶ 13.)
During the very early morning hours of January 26, 2011, Decedent awoke to
discover that part of his body had become paralyzed. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff called 911,
and Decedent was immediately transported to the Mayo Clinic via ambulance. (Id. at
2
¶ 15.) Tests were performed on Decedent at the Mayo Clinic on January 26, 2011. (Id. at
¶ 16.) That same day, January 26, 2011, Decedent was informed he had a very short time
to live. (Id. at ¶ 17.) Decedent then indicated he had certain matters he needed to attend
to—specifically, Decedent indicated he needed to execute a Last Will and Testament.
(Id. at ¶ 18.)
Decedent requested that Plaintiff’s daughter provide him with a blank Last Will
and Testament form. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Plaintiff’s daughter obtained such a form and returned
it to Decedent. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Plaintiff’s daughter then filled out the Last Will and
Testament as directed by Decedent. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Decedent proceeded to execute his
Last Will and Testament on January 27, 2011. (Id. at ¶ 22.) Plaintiff claims that
Decedent’s Last Will and Testament was properly witnessed and executed under
Minnesota law, and that it directed that any and all of Decedent’s life insurance and
benefits be distributed to Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶ 23-24.) Decedent died later the same day.
(Id. at ¶¶ 25-26.)
On February 10, 2011, Plaintiff’s counsel notified MetLife of Decedent’s death
and that Plaintiff was the named beneficiary of Decedent’s life insurance policy pursuant
to Decedent’s Last Will and Testament. (Id. at ¶ 29; ECF No. 22, Nicklow Aff. ¶ 3,
Ex. 1.) Plaintiff requested that MetLife pay her the proceeds of Decedent’s life insurance
policy. (Am. Compl. at ¶ 30.) MetLife denied Plaintiff’s request for Decedent’s life
insurance proceeds on February 25, 2011, claiming Plaintiff was not the named
beneficiary for Decedent’s life insurance policy. (Id. at ¶ 31.)
3
Plaintiff filed suit in state district court, and MetLife removed the case to this
Court. Plaintiff asserts the following four claims against Defendants: (1) Declaratory
Relief; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Conversion; and (4) Unjust Enrichment.
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court assumes all
facts in the complaint to be true and construes all reasonable inferences from those facts
in the light most favorable to the complainant. Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th
Cir. 1986). In doing so, however, a court need not accept as true wholly conclusory
allegations, Hanten v. Sch. Dist. of Riverview Gardens, 183 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir.
1999), or legal conclusions drawn by the pleader from the facts alleged, Westcott v. City
of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). A court may consider the complaint,
matters of public record, orders, materials embraced by the complaint, and exhibits
attached to the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Porous
Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
545 (2007). Although a complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” it must
contain facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Id. at 555. As the United States Supreme Court recently reiterated, “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,”
will not pass muster under Twombly. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
4
(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In sum, this standard “calls for enough fact[s] to raise
a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the claim].” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556.
II.
Motion to Strike
The Court concludes that the insurance policy documents attached to the affidavit
submitted by MetLife’s counsel are materials embraced by the complaint. See Porous
Media Corp., 186 F.3d at 1079. The Court may thus consider the affidavit in rendering
its decision on the motion to dismiss. See id. Consequently, Plaintiff’s motion to strike
is denied.
III.
Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s claims stem from the principal allegation that MetLife has unlawfully
failed to honor Decedent’s change of the named beneficiary of his life insurance policy.
MetLife argues that Plaintiff’s claims fail because Decedent did not properly submit a
change of beneficiary form pursuant to the requirements of the policy. Because the Court
finds that Plaintiff has asserted valid claims and has properly pleaded her claims,
MetLife’s motion to dismiss must be denied in its entirety.
The Certificate of Insurance for the plan at issues provides:
You may change Your Beneficiary at any time. To do so, You must send a
Signed and dated, Written request to the Policyholder using a form
satisfactory to Us. Your Written request to change the Beneficiary must be
sent to the Policyholder within 30 days of the date You Sign such request.
(Hittler Aff. ¶ 1(a), Ex. A at 65.)
5
Decedent executed his Last Will and Testament on January 27, 2011, the date of
his death. Plaintiff alleges that she provided MetLife with a copy of Decedent’s will,
through her counsel, on February 10, 2011, fourteen days after Decedent signed the
document. It is not clear to the Court why a properly witnessed and executed Last Will
and Testament, provided within thirty days of its signature, would not constitute “a form
satisfactory to” MetLife sufficient to effectuate a change in beneficiary of a life insurance
policy. Such an issue, however, as well as any relevant factual disputes, are not before
the Court for purposes of the present motion. Still, the Court determines, at a minimum,
that Plaintiff has articulated a factual basis for her claims in light of her contention that
Decedent complied with the terms of the policy by way of executing his Last Will and
Testament. In so holding, the Court notes that it is not concluding, as a matter of law,
that Decedent did, in fact, comply with the terms of the policy. Rather, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff has properly asserted her claims on the basis of her factual
allegations. The Court concludes that the Amended Complaint contains factual support
for each cause of action sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Twombly. As such,
Plaintiff’s claims must survive.
IV.
Motion to Amend
Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint as an alternative to granting
MetLife’s motion to dismiss. Because the Court has denied the motion to dismiss, the
Court denies as moot Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
6
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. No. [9]) is DENIED.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Affidavit of William D. Hittler (Doc.
No. [17]) is DENIED.
3.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. [19]) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated: January 5, 2012
s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?